Will less really become more?

'Outdoor Photography' and 'Black+White Photography' are published under the Guild of Master Craftsmen umbrella. I've always had a thing about the GMC since I became aware of it back in was it the 1970's? - because I believe in plain speaking and I can't see how it's a guild at all, it appears to be a private company formed to make a profit and run by its directors. A guild, after all, would be a not-for-profit run by its membership, wouldn't it? So I regard its branding as misleading. Thumbs down from me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
 
Less can become more. Taking photos on the streets and around the citys there are a lot of bright colours which can detract from what your'e trying to capture, so yes, less can be more, but in the right situation more can also be more.
 
StephenM said:
No names, no packdrill. One local school's photography curriculum (6th form) states that a camera isn't necessary; the same school for a number of years offered a photography evening class where the syllabus covered a) controls on your digital camera, b) downloading photos onto the computer and c) manipulating them with software. Which isn't photography as I know it. But it does illustrate the way people are taught to think of photography.
Click to expand...
Stephen, my club has been running an annual schools competition in our county for 16 years now and the majority of schools enter. Having been one of the judges almost every year, I have seen changes over that time. Most images were captured on a digital camera and, for almost all of this period, the schools owned at least one digital camera and often the means to print images. From the junior/infant schools, the prints may be on plain paper though this is becoming rarer now. More often they now seem to use a relatives camera or phone. Many of the children take photographs on their holidays and some as part of classwork. For these younger pupils they see the world differently to many adults and know nothing about the so called rules. In particular children will often photograph their friend or pets and take it at their level (something that many adults fail to do). Their images are probably much as we would have captured at the same age. The seniors and particularly 6th forms have certainly moved on over the years. It is now very rare to see a film source or darkroom print and they know about thirds etc. Many are familiar with post processing and some use it sparingly and others are more over the top. I doubt that many of the schools, if any, use film or dark rooms though they will meet this a college if they pursue this further. It is always a pleasure to see the children's work and know that new generations will adopt photography as a hobby.

Dave
 
Having talked about Outdoor Photographer magazine in this thread, there was an article in the same issue as the image I described about why people take pictures. For very, very few, the author suggested, it was about trying to say something. I wonder if we need some kind of prompt for "read me because I contain a message" and "enjoy me just for what I am" so that we can tell. :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
For very, very few, the author suggested, it was about trying to say something.
Click to expand...
I'm inclined to agree. But I ought to qualify that by saying that there are different possible forms of message - some led by intellect and others by emotion. And some pictures are just for domestic or other record, and a message isn't required. I think a lot of people take / make photos more or less just because they can, and these are commonly message-free. This is inevitable, because anyone can pick up a camera.
ancient_mariner said:
I wonder if we need some kind of prompt for "read me because I contain a message" and "enjoy me just for what I am" so that we can tell.
Click to expand...
Tongue in cheek notwithstanding, I'd say that generally the nature of the content of an image should be clearly discernible, if not to everyone then at least to those who are schooled in imaging. Though sometimes a caption will provide a key and flesh out the bones, or images in a collection expand on the voice of a single picture.
 
droj said:
I'd say that generally the nature of the content of an image should be clearly discernible, if not to everyone then at least to those who are schooled in imaging.
Click to expand...
Most images are for communicating information and a caption is often an essential part of that communication. As an example: this picture is meaningless without the information of where and when the dead bird was found...

Tag on bird found by Canal at Long Buckby FX55_1000416.jpg
 
Nothing beats a good solid view captured well in camera, and likewise you really can't polish a turd. We do get a lot somewhere in between though.

Some degree of post processing is always a must. Our cameras with RAW capture and super neutral profiles are set up for further manipulation. Sometimes it's moderate contrast boost, saturation and that's it. Sometimes it needs a fair bit of local adjustments, mainly to do with the fact cameras treat dynamic range unlike our visual system. As mentioned focus stacking may be needed with longer lenses or macros... Sometimes a nasty elsement, chemtrail needs to go... Sometimes it is altogether different digital creation. It's rather easy to go wrong the more you do.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
And it smells fabulous when I open the postage bag it comes in!
emoji3.png
emoji3.png
emoji3.png
Click to expand...

Is it bad thats the main reason I've not just switched to a digital sub.
 
Less doesn't become more, it IS more. This is not a post processing issue so much as a compositional one. Too cluttered a shot makes it less effective, & framing to only show the relevant parts of a scene makes a stronger image.

Sadly many of my shots definitely fail in this department but I refuse to spend hours post processing to remove awkward backgrounds... 60s exposures (the limit on my Panasonics) I have nothing against with or without a filter.
 
Petrochemist said:
Less doesn't become more, it IS more. This is not a post processing issue so much as a compositional one. Too cluttered a shot makes it less effective, & framing to only show the relevant parts of a scene makes a stronger image.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily so. Complex pictures can be very effective. They're harder to make than simplified pictures though.

1993-5016_SS94_33.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
That's the future of photography, and it's here right now. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/nov/13/joana-choumali-wins-2019-prix-prictet-prize:)
Click to expand...
I'd forgotten about this until I saw the whole Prix Pictet exhibition last week. Choumali's embroidered images are beautiful objects in a way that doesn't come across on the website, and the work from other photographers was strong across the board. There's a broader selection from the whole shortlist here: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/jul/05/prix-pictet-2019-shortlist-photo-essay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top